Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Tuesday February 28, @05:37AM   Printer-friendly

The computer's accuracy improved as scientists used more qubits to fix mistakes:

To shrink error rates in quantum computers, sometimes more is better. More qubits, that is.

The quantum bits, or qubits, that make up a quantum computer are prone to mistakes that could render a calculation useless if not corrected. To reduce that error rate, scientists aim to build a computer that can correct its own errors. Such a machine would combine the powers of multiple fallible qubits into one improved qubit, called a "logical qubit," that can be used to make calculations.

Scientists now have demonstrated a key milestone in quantum error correction. Scaling up the number of qubits in a logical qubit can make it less error-prone, researchers at Google report February 22 in Nature.

[...] The new advance doesn't mean researchers are ready to build a fully error-corrected quantum computer, "however, it does demonstrate that it is indeed possible, that error correction fundamentally works," physicist Julian Kelly of Google Quantum AI said in a news briefing February 21.

[...] That small improvement suggests scientists are finally tiptoeing into the regime where error correction can begin to squelch errors by scaling up. "It's a major goal to achieve," says physicist Andreas Wallraff of ETH Zurich, who was not involved with the research.

However, the result is only on the cusp of showing that error correction improves as scientists scale up. A computer simulation of the quantum computer's performance suggests that, if the logical qubit's size were increased even more, its error rate would actually get worse. Additional improvement to the original faulty qubits will be needed to enable scientists to really capitalize on the benefits of error correction.

Still, milestones in quantum computation are so difficult to achieve that they're treated like pole jumping, Wallraff says. You just aim to barely clear the bar.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28, @08:00AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 28, @08:00AM (#1293673)

    I thought I made an error once, but I was wrong. It was a quantum fluctuation in the logical quibit. Easy mistake.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday February 28, @04:47PM

      by Freeman (732) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 28, @04:47PM (#1293752) Journal

      Yet, my teacher would never buy that one either.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 28, @04:15PM (1 child)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 28, @04:15PM (#1293738) Journal

    Imagine if operations on a 4 banger calculator were wrong 3% of the time. Because the errors would be cumulative, it would mean it was actually easier to do your taxes with pencil and paper arithmetic.

    Not saying the problem won't eventually be solved, but I am saying that practical quantum computing is not just around the corner.

    • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Wednesday March 01, @09:52PM

      by inertnet (4071) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 01, @09:52PM (#1293960) Journal

      Because the errors would be cumulative, it would mean it was actually easier to do your taxes with pencil and paper arithmetic

      Or a dice.

(1)